If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Batting Average and the Reds

The Reds are third in the NL in runs scored, but some would point to the fact that the Cards have scored almost 60 more runs, that the Reds are a high OBP team this year and perhaps should score more, that the Reds leave a lot of runners on, and that perhaps the Reds runs reflect some huge games but not consistency.

Without trashing the Reds offense, not my intention, I simply point out that the Reds only have one position player with a .280 or above BA and that's Votto. And have only two position players hitting over .270, add Bruce.

There's been a tendency to elevate OBP and SLG, but perhaps to downplay BA in this era. My premise is that these three stats are important and that it would be good for the Reds to have a higher BA group.

OBP includes walks, so a hitter like Choo brings much more value than his BA would indicate, true. HRs are important, so a power man like Bruce adds more as well.

But one way to score, not an unimportant way, is to string together hits. Hits are reflected by BA. And while I recognize that base hits are influenced by luck, nevertheless the Reds often seem to have low BA clubs which impairs their offense.

This is an unusual year because the Reds are third in the league in OBP (thank you Choo) and eighth in SLG (at league average). This is the opposite of some previous years when power was their thing. And with Ludwick the SLG would probably be better.

But the team's BA of .248 is below league average. Which is not to say it's impossible to win with a low BA, it's been done as a poster recently pointed out.
But still.

I don't see the problem as a lack of clutch hitting or hitting with RISP, as some do, I see the problem as having many hitters who just don't get that many hits.

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Average certainly matters because hits are better than walks. OBP gets more play because it is more important because it takes into account all that a player does at the plate in terms of reaching safely.

The Cardinals are freaks both in their AVG and their insane BABIP with RISP that has produced far more success in scoring runs than should be expected moving forward (they will still be good, because they are a good hitting team, but they aren't this good).

Likes:

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Average certainly matters because hits are better than walks. OBP gets more play because it is more important because it takes into account all that a player does at the plate in terms of reaching safely.

The Cardinals are freaks both in their AVG and their insane BABIP with RISP that has produced far more success in scoring runs than should be expected moving forward (they will still be good, because they are a good hitting team, but they aren't this good).

Yes. I would note that the Reds had a very good BA in 2010. But it's been much lower in 2011, 2012, and this year.

And I recognize that OBP adds the element of walks and HBP, and I'm not saying it's unimportant. Frankly, in the OBP department, the Reds number is very good but heavily influenced by two OBP beasts. The Reds group does not incude a large number of high OBP players.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't forget about BA just because it isn't the flavor of the month. And that I'd like to see the Reds find a way to include a couple of higher BA hitters in the lineup, obviously other than Votto who already is.

Likes:

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

I think with all things being equal, you would rather have somebody hit .320 with a .320 OBP than hit .240 with a .320 OBP.

Look at Bruce this year. His OBP is .006 points below his career average, but his BA is .030 points higher. More hits, you acquire more bases, higher slugging, better than average year for him (so far). Now you could get into an argument over if his numbers this year are sustainable, but looking in a vacuum you would rather have a hit than a walk with all things being equal.

Now, would I rather have a guy who hits .250 with a .370 OBP or a guy who hits .285 with a .320 on base? In that case, I'll sacrifice the BA for the on base. The more guys you get on base, the better.

I think the Reds offensive problems are being magnified right now because they're like 1 for the last 1700 with RISP. Even if they're not a very good team with RISP, that won't continue.

There's a happy medium. You score runs by stringing guys not making outs together, but at the same time you can recognize it does usually take a hit to score runs.

At the end of the day, I'll take the team that gets on base the most when given the opprotunity.

Last edited by reds44; 07-01-2013 at 04:55 PM.

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Let's face it, you mis-hit the bun with the mustard squirter, no one will really care.

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by reds44

I think with all things being equal, you would rather have somebody hit .320 with a .320 BA than hit .240 with a .320 BA.

Look at Bruce this year. His OBP is .006 points below his career average, but his BA is .030 points higher. More hits, you acquire more bases, higher slugging, better than average year for him (so far). Now you could get into an argument over if his numbers this year are sustainable, but looking in a vacuum you would rather have a hit than a walk with all things being equal.

Now, would I rather have a guy who hits .250 with a .370 OBP or a guy who hits .285 with a .320 on base? In that case, I'll sacrifice the BA for the on base. The more guys you get on base, the better.

I think the Reds offensive problems are being magnified right now because they're like 1 for the last 1700 with RISP. Even if they're not a very good team with RISP, that won't continue.

There's a happy medium. You score runs by stringing guys not making outs together, but at the same time you can recognize it does usually take a hit to score runs.

At the end of the day, I'll take the team that gets on base the most when given the opprotunity.

I think you used BA a couple of times when you meant OBP.

I hope this thread doesn't turn into OBP v. BA. That wasn't my intent. I'm not denying the importance of OBP.

But, while men on base are important, it's hard to score with walks alone. And the main point is the nature of the Reds hitters. Even with an OBP third best in the league, the Reds are having many games where the offense seems impotent.

My premise is that the Reds have too many low BA hitters and that is hurting them, including against good teams and good pitchers.

Likes:

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Nice post, Kc61. I do generally agree with what you are saying here, though I am not sure about the solution. Really seems like the Reds could use at least one more "professional" hitter to go along with the quartet of Votto, Bruce, Phillips and Choo. I have been hopeful that Mes can be that guy eventually, which is why I find it frustrating that he only plays part time.

"Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

All that matters is OBP and SLG. AVG adds nothing meaningful to the picture at the end of the day.

.280/.340/.440 is not any better than .260/.340/.440, in fact it is slightly worse in terms of generating runs for a team. Yes, you are turning a few walks into singles and that is good, but you are also turning home runs into doubles and/or doubles into singles (else the SLG would change) and that is bad.

Sacrificing any OBP or SLG to improve AVG would be a losing proposition.

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by reds44

I think with all things being equal, you would rather have somebody hit .320 with a .320 OBP than hit .240 with a .320 OBP.

Look at Bruce this year. His OBP is .006 points below his career average, but his BA is .030 points higher. More hits, you acquire more bases, higher slugging, better than average year for him (so far). Now you could get into an argument over if his numbers this year are sustainable, but looking in a vacuum you would rather have a hit than a walk with all things being equal.

Now, would I rather have a guy who hits .250 with a .370 OBP or a guy who hits .285 with a .320 on base? In that case, I'll sacrifice the BA for the on base. The more guys you get on base, the better.

I think the Reds offensive problems are being magnified right now because they're like 1 for the last 1700 with RISP. Even if they're not a very good team with RISP, that won't continue.

There's a happy medium. You score runs by stringing guys not making outs together, but at the same time you can recognize it does usually take a hit to score runs.

At the end of the day, I'll take the team that gets on base the most when given the opprotunity.

Truth be told, I'd rather have someone get on base at a .300 clip with a .300 average than a .330 OBP with something like a .250 BA. The extra bases taken through doubles, triples, homers and base runners advancing second and third bases make up for said 3% difference.

I am curious what the break-even point would be on that, though.

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

All that matters is OBP and SLG. AVG adds nothing meaningful to the picture at the end of the day.

.280/.340/.440 is not any better than .260/.340/.440, in fact it is slightly worse in terms of generating runs for a team. Yes, you are turning a few walks into singles and that is good, but you are also turning home runs into doubles and/or doubles into singles (else the SLG would change) and that is bad.

Sacrificing any OBP or SLG to improve AVG would be a losing proposition.

The other gets 5 hits in 30 plate appearances, seven of which are walks.

The second guy will have a better on-base percentage, but factor in the double and the extra bases taken by base runners on account of the hits (advancing first to third, second to home, etc.), and the first player is going to be more valuable. Especially since the slugging will be better. In fact, in the above example, the first player has created four runs hypothetically. The second has created two.

Sacrificing OBP for average can indeed be a good thing sometimes.

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by Brutus

Truth be told, I'd rather have someone get on base at a .300 clip with a .300 average than a .330 OBP with something like a .250 BA. The extra bases taken through doubles, triples, homers and base runners advancing second and third bases make up for said 3% difference.

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

The other gets 5 hits in 30 plate appearances, seven of which are walks.

The second guy will have a better on-base percentage, but factor in the double and the extra bases taken by base runners on account of the hits (advancing first to third, second to home, etc.), and the first player is going to be more valuable. Especially since the slugging will be better. In fact, in the above example, the first player has created four runs hypothetically. The second has created two.

Sacrificing OBP for average can indeed be a good thing sometimes.

I don't think you understood my post. Both players had the same SLG.

In your example it is different because their SLGs are not the same. The 1st player is better because his SLG is higher not because his AVG is higher. OBP and SLG are what matter. AVG is irrelevant. It is a horrifically misleading statistic with two huge flaws that render it untenable as a useful metric.

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by RiverRat13

Doesn't wOBA basically measure what you are talking about?

Yes it does. But I meant contextualized from a standpoint of how much it's worth each additional batting average point for trading a discipline point based on each additional slugging point... or something like that.

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by RiverRat13

Doesn't wOBA basically measure what you are talking about?

wOBA is the best offensive metric, but strictly speaking it is not a pure hitting metric because it contains a significant base-stealing component. wOBA would give you almost identical comparative results to OPS if you left out the baserunning factor. OBP and SLG each have one major flaw but those flaws cancel out when you add OBP and SLG together. (By the way, AVG contains both of those flaws and nothing cancels them out, rendering the statistic useless for serious research).

While OPS is not quite as accurate as wOBA, it is more readily available and is more familiar to most people so it makes a very good metric for use in these discussions.

Re: Batting Average and the Reds

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

I don't think you understood my post. Both players had the same SLG.

In your example it is different because their SLGs are not the same. The 1st player is better because his SLG is higher not because his AVG is higher. OBP and SLG are what matter. AVG is irrelevant. It is a horrifically misleading statistic with two huge flaws that render it untenable as a useful metric.

Your last line "sacrificing any OBP or SLG to improve AVG would be a losing proposition" made no such distinction about whether two players' SLG was identical in a vacuum.

Still, we're not talking about two different players with identical slugging. We're talking about the concept of whether it's worth trading OBP points for additional hits (which will often raise the slugging). I also don't know how you can remove average from this like it's meaningless. Slugging is made up of two things: average and ISO. You can't have ISO (or consequently slugging) without average.

"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most
importantly, enjoy yourselves!

RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball